Kind of shocking how S. J. Holgate’s sea level chart was modified before it was published in GRL. Compare his poster for his original talk and what made it into GRL. The center right graph in the poster. The graph in GRL.

Thanks, John A, for the getting my graphic posted. I have attempted doing this both the way you recommended and the manual rendition. With your way I got nothing and my way I got the graphic showing in the preview, but not showing in the finished post. Actually this post is a replacement for one that got lost in the transition the other night and in that one the graphic was showing in the finished post. I’ll get it right I am sure — after a little more practice. I also have to work on my table column headings alignment.

Re: #47

David, I saw the same error just about every time I read that graph. It is a Jim Hansen publication. Could it be that the climate scientists are in such a big hurry to get the message out that they do not take the time to check their work and readers of papers have the same attitude and thus it becomes a tolerable thing? I would not necessarily limit this problem to clerical errors either. I can understand this situation as some of my hurry up posts can have multiple spelling and grammatical errors.

>In this case I believe they would say if questioned that it is the largest change in absolute terms and not percentages even though they used 20% when referencing the 1995 to 2005 change.

You are probably right, but still, the SPM statement is apparently false as it stands. It is a small point, but should be corrected in my opinion.

Also, did anyone notice that the sea level table in the SPM has been corrected?

]]>By: David Smithhttp://climateaudit.org/2007/02/04/antarctic-and-sea-level/#comment-78386
Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:53:18 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1118#comment-78386RE #45 Ken, one thing that has caught my eye about the work of climate scientists is their too-common failure to closely check their work before publication. In the chart you link, the y-axis has an error. It is a small thing, and not a big deal, but it does make one wonder about the quality of the work not shown.
]]>By: John Ahttp://climateaudit.org/2007/02/04/antarctic-and-sea-level/#comment-78385
Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:17:57 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1118#comment-78385Try right-clicking on the graph and select copy link to location and then hit “Img” and Ctrl-V the link.

Thus:

]]>By: Ken Fritschhttp://climateaudit.org/2007/02/04/antarctic-and-sea-level/#comment-78384
Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:15:39 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1118#comment-78384Another graph you will never see in an IPCC report is the one below from:

“The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}”

I calculate (roughly, based on figure 2.4 of the draft IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report) that the increase in radiative forcing from 1970 to 1980 was from 0.84 to 1.06 W/m^2, which is 26%. So the SPM statement appears to be incorrect that the largest % change was 1995 to 2005. Any comment from RC staff?

Any comments here whether this is another SPM error?

I admit to being puzzled by the SPM statement also, but, as in many other instances of the use of spin in these IPCC reports when discussing data, I would suggest that they will invariably have an alternative explanation. In this case I believe they would say if questioned that it is the largest change in absolute terms and not percentages even though they used 20% when referencing the 1995 to 2005 change.

Here is what I found at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi in Table 2 and excerpted below for historical radiative forcings (RF) for CO2 and total GHGs and 11 year changes in RF CO2 and Total GHGs :